Last week, five executives from the nation's biggest oil companies were paraded before the Senate Judiciary Committee and harangued by hypocritical political exhibitionists whose shameless theatrics were exceeded only by their manifest ignorance of basic economics.

It was a "show trial" that would have made Joseph Stalin blush. Shell Oil President John Hofmeister gave an eloquent explanation of the global oil situation and the problems caused by irrational domestic restrictions. But his demeanor was diplomatic to a fault, pleading with the Senate inquisition to reconsider its threat of a windfall profits tax.

I was hoping for a more aggressive defense, with an oil company exec rising from his seat, wagging his finger - Bill Clinton-style - in the faces of these grandstanding demagogues and giving them hell in return, something like, "Are you insane? Don't you remember what happened the last time you clowns screwed with the industry during the Carter presidency? You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. You're the ones who won't let us drill for oil and gas in ANWR and offshore; you're the ones blocking new refineries and nuclear plants. And the best you can do is sue OPEC or antitrust collusion? Be serious. You might as well sue Osama bin Laden for property damage."

The dollar amount of oil company profits is big because all the numbers are big in this industry. The percentage return on those revenues is in line with other industries. When the world crude price is high, oil company profits climb just as they plunge when world oil prices slump. Even at record levels, the oil industry pays far more in taxes to government than it reaps in profits. Since 1992, the Big 5 oil companies have earned $662 billion. But they didn't stuff that money in a mattress. Over the same period, they reinvested $765 billion in future development. That's called capital formation in a market economy.

Flaunting his ignorance, Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl declared, "We can only conclude that the oil markets have failed." No they haven't, they're doing just what they're supposed to do, equilibrating supply and demand. To be sure, inflation, a weaker dollar and speculators are contributing to the surge in prices, but supply-and-demand economics is at the heart of this, with burgeoning economic growth in emerging economies like China and India leading the way. The remedy for the United States in the foreseeable future is more supply of proven, practical domestic energy resources, not "sustainable" hallucinations from the greenies.

The fanciful notion that human activity is a significant factor in climate change, and "carbonphobia" have held U.S. energy policy hostage long enough. Preachers of enviro-Armageddon imagine humankind reverting to a Spartan lifestyle as world energy resources slowly dwindle. If that's truly our fate, let's blow it all now and enjoy it while it lasts. In the grand scheme of history, what difference would it make if we've got 20, 50 or 100 years?

But that's not my vision. Oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power, will be our mainstays for decades to come. Of course we should use all our energy sources efficiently, but conservation isn't the solution, it's only a temporary mitigation. Ultimately, a quantum technological breakthrough will catapult us to a new level of energy efficiency. It may be unleashing the force of hydrogen from water, or the dilithium crystals that power the starship Enterprise. The lesson of history is that we solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology.

And here's a campaign tip for John McCain: Get off Al Gore's global-warming bandwagon. It's a fool's errand. Soaring energy prices are shifting American public opinion to a more sensible balance between environmental concerns and economic reality. Lead it. From oil and gas in Alaska and off our coasts, to oil shale in the Rocky Mountains, to nuclear power, America is awash in developable energy resources. Take a strong stand on unleashing them.

Last week, five executives from the nation's biggest oil companies were paraded before the Senate Judiciary Committee and harangued by hypocritical political exhibitionists whose shameless theatrics were exceeded only by their manifest ignorance of basic economics.

It was a "show trial" that would have made Joseph Stalin blush. Shell Oil President John Hofmeister gave an eloquent explanation of the global oil situation and the problems caused by irrational domestic restrictions. But his demeanor was diplomatic to a fault, pleading with the Senate inquisition to reconsider its threat of a windfall profits tax.

I was hoping for a more aggressive defense, with an oil company exec rising from his seat, wagging his finger - Bill Clinton-style - in the faces of these grandstanding demagogues and giving them hell in return, something like, "Are you insane? Don't you remember what happened the last time you clowns screwed with the industry during the Carter presidency? You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror. You're the ones who won't let us drill for oil and gas in ANWR and offshore; you're the ones blocking new refineries and nuclear plants. And the best you can do is sue OPEC or antitrust collusion? Be serious. You might as well sue Osama bin Laden for property damage."

The dollar amount of oil company profits is big because all the numbers are big in this industry. The percentage return on those revenues is in line with other industries. When the world crude price is high, oil company profits climb just as they plunge when world oil prices slump. Even at record levels, the oil industry pays far more in taxes to government than it reaps in profits. Since 1992, the Big 5 oil companies have earned $662 billion. But they didn't stuff that money in a mattress. Over the same period, they reinvested $765 billion in future development. That's called capital formation in a market economy.

Flaunting his ignorance, Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl declared, "We can only conclude that the oil markets have failed." No they haven't, they're doing just what they're supposed to do, equilibrating supply and demand. To be sure, inflation, a weaker dollar and speculators are contributing to the surge in prices, but supply-and-demand economics is at the heart of this, with burgeoning economic growth in emerging economies like China and India leading the way. The remedy for the United States in the foreseeable future is more supply of proven, practical domestic energy resources, not "sustainable" hallucinations from the greenies.

The fanciful notion that human activity is a significant factor in climate change, and "carbonphobia" have held U.S. energy policy hostage long enough. Preachers of enviro-Armageddon imagine humankind reverting to a Spartan lifestyle as world energy resources slowly dwindle. If that's truly our fate, let's blow it all now and enjoy it while it lasts. In the grand scheme of history, what difference would it make if we've got 20, 50 or 100 years?

But that's not my vision. Oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power, will be our mainstays for decades to come. Of course we should use all our energy sources efficiently, but conservation isn't the solution, it's only a temporary mitigation. Ultimately, a quantum technological breakthrough will catapult us to a new level of energy efficiency. It may be unleashing the force of hydrogen from water, or the dilithium crystals that power the starship Enterprise. The lesson of history is that we solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology.

And here's a campaign tip for John McCain: Get off Al Gore's global-warming bandwagon. It's a fool's errand. Soaring energy prices are shifting American public opinion to a more sensible balance between environmental concerns and economic reality. Lead it. From oil and gas in Alaska and off our coasts, to oil shale in the Rocky Mountains, to nuclear power, America is awash in developable energy resources. Take a strong stand on unleashing them.

And this is why Mr. Rosen is yapping on the radio and not still doing finance in corporate America. Lack of critical thinking skills.

Starting at the top, one would ask why the Bush Congress of 2001-2006, with their veto proof majority did not deal with ANWR or Offshore or new Refineries or Nuke? It certainly was not over burdened regulation or oversight.

Then we wander through the "it's free market, ok maybe speculators, no it's supply and demand, ok maybe the incredible shrinking dollar but really it's supply and demand". What, demand is down? But...But...

And then we have the "GCC is not real, it can't be because Al Gore says it is so I am going to take a scientific concept and assume a political position since I am to dumb to understand the science"

First we have the Appeasements of that Rightwing talk show giant Kevin James and now this. Does the right actually have anyone that thinks BEFORE they hit the submit button when they try and write an article?

This is as bad as reading the Hippy Dippy News with Rainbow and Skye.

McBear, Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.

"Conservatives" (if that is what they want to call themselves, they are actually radicals attempting to change our form of government to Corporatism) are not interested in governing for the benefit of the people, as Scott McClellen has pointed out in his book, they are only interested in gaining and keeping power in an endless campaign, a constant braying of negative spin. They have no interest in a Republic where elected officials are servents of the people, they want a Republic where elected officials are not servants, they are slaves, slaves to Capital and Corporation. And they are engage in a continuos campaign of trying keep and maintain in power the slaves of Capital, not servants of the people.

To all of them, to bottomline, to the so-called "conservatives", the fact that the Senate is simply doing the job assigned to it in the Constitution is somehow a bad thing, it is portrayed as some evil by the author, and those who are simply doing the job assigned to them are somehow evil and bad. It is portrayed as "conservatism", but what it is, is an actual attack on democracy itself. Corporate Oil Titans should be free to do as this wish, to rule as they see fit, and the Senate should be damned. The rest of us should put up or shut the fuck up, we have no right to elect Senators who go to the Senate and actually represent the opinions of the people who elected them. In order to defeat this inconvenient aspect of Democracy, the right wing has given us a culture of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger, even if the messenger is functioning as intended in this Democracy. They have poured billions into building a huge machine of this, of Fox News, of "Talk Show Hosts", a machine of negative communication whose sole purpose is to give false legitimacy to propaganda and lies. Just watch them go to work on McClellen, just as the always have whenever someone speaks truth to power.

Bottomline, the opinions of these Senators, the questions of these Senators, whether wonderfully logical or perfectly silly, are the questions millions of people want asked of these Titans. Instead of addressing these issues, just look at the title of this thread or read the real intent of that article. That is the "Culture of Deception" McClellen is talking about at work.

This is one of the reasons people like bottomline need to be seen for what they really are: a danger to democracy itself. The workings of democracy itself are seen by them as evil, as somehow a bad thing. The great men who founded this country intended for the Senate to do exactly what it did here: recognize a burden and a danger to the people, and hold hearings to get at it's cause. During the years you mentioned mcbear, the previous Bush Bootlick Bridge-to-Nowhere Congress obstructed more hearings then it held, if it held any at all. It was government by insider and lobbyist, government by propaganda bullshit and government by deception and lies. That is the kind of government bottomline is comfortable with, he has no need for the actual workings of democracy.

What is even sadder is the bad history and poor logic contained in the article. The word "Carter" is used as if a given for failure. The author mentions nothing of the issues at the time, he uses the fact we have had years of Right Wing Media Machine drilling into our skulls that "Carter=failure" to "tag" this issue. But if we were to look at the actual facts, we would find something different. Jimmy Carter may have done a lot wrong, but energy policy was not one of them. Our dependence on foreign oil was actually declining under his term.

If Carter's policy of a tax on foreign oil and a tax on gas guzzling cars had been made permanent, we would not be in the mess we are today. If foreign oil had stayed expensive, we would have suffered with an inconvenience of developing alternatives in the 1970's, which was actually going well, instead of being faced with the utter energy disaster of today. If we had taxed gas guzzlers, we would have produced a sensible means of transportation that would have made better use of our own resources. Who opposed Carter in all of that? Who supported Reagan in his poorly decided move to remove the tax on oil? Why, it was these same Oil Titans, the ones who should never be questioned by "slime". Instead of thoughtfully arguing that, we get typical Right Wing Deception Speak. Instead we became international thugs who murder for oil and again, that is the kind of government these so-called "conservatives", who have no interest in conserving the blessings of democracy, are comfortable with. The Senate be damned. The people be damned. We have had eight years of that. It is called Bushism. It is better called Fascism.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.